Google, Inc. GOOG

Sort: Most Popular  ·  Most Recent

1. DecidedGoogle LLC. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. et al
   California Northern District Court  Case No. 5:17-cv-04207

   Cross-Border EnforcementFirst AmendmentGoogleInternet JurisdictionSearch EnginesSection 230Trade Secrets

   Google LLC filed this lawsuit in July 2017 in the Northern District of California seeking a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of a Canadian court order that required Google to delist search results globally — not just in Canada — linking to websites operated by Equustek Solutions Inc.'s former distributor, which Equustek alleged was selling counterfeit products and misappropriating trade secrets. The British Columbia Supreme Court had issued an unprecedented worldwide delisting order, and after Google failed to fully comply, a Canadian court ordered Google to pay $10,000 per day. Google argued that being forced to comply with a foreign court order affecting its global search index violated the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes internet platforms from liability for third-party content. The U.S. district court granted Google a preliminary injunction, finding that enforcing the Canadian order in the United States would likely violate Section 230. The case became a landmark in cross-border internet jurisdiction, raising fundamental questions about whether a national court could require a global internet platform to remove information worldwide — effectively allowing one country's courts to set the limits of online information for users everywhere.

2. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
   California Northern District Court  Case No. 5:12-cv-00630-LHK

   Consumer ElectronicsDesign PatentIn The NewsiPhonePatent InfringementSmartphoneTechnologyTrade Dress

   Apple Inc. filed this second major patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics and its subsidiaries in February 2012 in the Northern District of California before Judge Lucy H. Koh, following the landmark first Apple v. Samsung case. This action alleged that Samsung's newest generation of smartphones and tablets infringed a different set of Apple's utility and design patents than were at issue in the first case. The case attracted numerous third-party intervenors including Google, IBM, Nokia, and OmniVision Technologies, all of whom had provided prior art licenses or whose technology was implicated in the patents at issue. The litigation involved intense activity in 2013 including dozens of administrative motions to file under seal, stipulations, and pro hac vice admissions. A stay was entered in October 2013 pending the outcome of related patent proceedings. The case involved overlapping technology across both parties' product lines with significant stakes for the global smartphone industry.

3. Dismissed (Settled)In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation
   California Northern District Court  Case No. 5:11-cv-02509-LHK

   AntitrustAppleEmploymentGoogleIn The NewsLabor MarketNo-Poach AgreementSherman ActSilicon ValleyTechnology Companies

   This consolidated class action, filed in the Northern District of California, arose from a Department of Justice investigation that revealed that Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe, Intuit, Lucasfilm, and Pixar had entered into bilateral agreements not to cold-call or recruit each other's employees. The so-called "no-poach" agreements suppressed competition for engineering and technical talent in Silicon Valley, keeping wages lower than they would have been in a competitive labor market. The DOJ settled civil antitrust charges with the companies in 2010, but private plaintiffs subsequently filed this class action seeking damages on behalf of the affected workers. The case involved tens of thousands of current and former employees of the defendant companies who alleged their compensation was suppressed by the illegal agreements. Internal emails produced in discovery — including communications involving Steve Jobs — revealed the extent of the coordination. A settlement of approximately $415 million was reached in 2015 after the district court rejected an earlier $324 million settlement as inadequate. The case became a landmark in applying antitrust law to labor market competition in the technology industry.

4. Pompura v. Equifax
   Texas Eastern District Court  Case No. 1:16-cv-00521

5. Max Sound Corporation v. Google, LLC.
   California Northern District Court  Case No. 3:14-cv-04412

6. Netlist, Inc. v. Google Inc.
   California Northern District Court  Case No. 4:09-cv-05718

7. Parallel Networks, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. et al
   Texas Eastern District Court  Case No. 6:12-cv-00018

8. Blue Spike, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc.
   Texas Eastern District Court  Case No. 6:12-cv-00499

9. Google Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.
   California Northern District Court  Case No. 4:08-cv-04144

10. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.
    Supreme Court of the United States  Case No. 13-298

    In The NewsPatentsSoftware Patents

11. Google Inc. v. Farnsworth, Boulter, Burke & Stamper, Llc
    USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board  Case No. 91211077-OPP

12. In Re: Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation
    Delaware District Court  Case No. 1:12-md-02358

13. Blagman v. Apple, Inc. et al
    New York Southern District Court  Case No. 1:12-cv-05453

14. Google Inc. v. Chroma Financial Services, Inc.
    USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board  Case No. 91223803-OPP

15. Google Inc. v. Spivak
    California Northern District Court  Case No. 5:15-cv-02981

16. Gonzalez et al v. Google, Inc.
    California Northern District Court  Case No. 4:16-cv-03282

    CDA Section 230

17. Microsoft Corporation v. United States Department of Justice
    Washington Western District Court  Case No. 2:16-cv-00538

18. Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
    California Northern District Court  Case No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA

    APIs

19. Google Inc. v. Hood
    Mississippi Southern District Court  Case No. 3:14-cv-00981

20. Garcia et al v. Google Inc et al
    California Central District Court  Case No. 2:12-cv-08315